An exhaustive and authoritative investigation into the Christadelphians with links from their own sources as well as insights from former members. Complete examination of their history, organisation, theology, practices, and the challenges they face.

A Critical Analysis of the Christadelphian Belief System

Preliminary Considerations

If we are to do a critical analysis of the Christadelphian belief system we need
to know what we are critically assessing. The first point to note is that
whilst there is widespread conformity, the community isn’t totally void of diversity.
There is no official definition of what a true Christadelphian is because there
is no official ruling body to make such a definition and no one has a copyright
to the name, although there is a point in most congregations beyond which openly
holding differing positions leads to action such as disfellowship being taken.
For historical reasons the nearest to an official position rests in statements of
faith and, to a lesser degree, ecclesial constitutions. Even there many have
not read them or given personal assent to them. In addition they have not been translated
into all areas where Christadelphians operate. Also without a central
ruling body with time some digressions have occurred, there are “conservative” and
“liberal” meetings and remnants from various historical divisions remain. Theologically
the movement has also changed its stance on several issues, its modes of preaching, its relationship
to the wider world, its increase in material goods, attitudes to remarriage, to
name a few.

The historical claim of Christadelphians has been that mainstream Christianity is
astray on all major doctrines to the degree that salvation cannot be found within
“the churches”. These beliefs are why statements of faith were compiled at
certain stages in its history and why fellowship was limited to full agreement with
all points, both in the positive and the negative. They do not make any sense
outside of that context, although many today would feel less certain about being dogmatic
themselves that full belief is essential for salvation. They are happier to
leave the final judgement to God, allow greater scope for grace to be given for
error, but at the same time are still unwilling to reflect that in a wider fellowship
position. The community is therefore less certain it alone has “the Truth”
and is more willing to consider the possibility other Christians may also be brethren.

The majority however largely hold and maintain the position established by a creedal
process that to be a Christadelphian you have to believe certain things. They
may not hold the detail of statements regarding elements of the atonement in such
matters as “sin in the flesh” or who will be responsible at the judgement, but would
nevertheless be adamant that certain key elements at least have to be maintained.
Fuller assent is generally emphasised more in some of the smaller breakaway groups
which claim the mainstream community has apostatised from its original positions -
largely held to be recovered in the positions established by John Thomas and Robert
Roberts. The statements of faith are limited in that they do not cover every
practical issue historically considered essential too - for instance the role of women
or the rejection of evolution - and gaining consensus to alter
the statements is functionally impossible without some central body. So as
time goes on the cohesiveness of the community is weakening as there are few mechanisms
to deal with changes other than division/ rejection of other congregations where
differences are judged to be too big to accommodate.

The community has survived in a non hierarchical form fairly well and this can largely
be attributed to its defined statements of faith, its exclusive position based on
correct beliefs and maintaining that, and its concept of separation from the world,
except when unavoidable due to the need to earn income. This leads to the
members seeking support amongst themselves as a largely closed, exclusive community
and creates a strong status quo that questions any movements to change or question
anything. This US-THEM dynamic has also been maintained by the practice of
endogamy, or limiting marriage only to fellow Christadelphians with those members
“marrying out” disciplined or at least being reprimanded and being required to discuss
and admit the sin inherent in their actions.

This section is therefore critically examining the position that is largely held
and which largely came into existence through the preaching of John Thomas and the
creedal process that limited membership to those who have largely maintained his
doctrinal belief set. It should be noted that this is, by and large, the norm.
Whilst many in private have reservations and a few more liberal congregations exist
this is a minority position. In most congregations being a Christadelphian rests on maintaining
certain doctrinal positions largely defined in statements of faith and also adhering
to certain beliefs on other practical matters which are not defined within them.
For instance speaking on “the platform” is not denied to women in the statements
of faith, but few Christadelphians would accept it as allowable.

This section is therefore critically assessing the normal belief that Christadelphianism
has been the recovery of the first century gospel and they alone have true Christianity.
The method that has been used to “prove” this has been an appeal to the Bible,
proof-quoting passages, often combined with a combatitive approach, willingness and desire
to debate all comers.

Foundational Principles and their Restorationist Assumptions

So, to use Christadelphian terminology, “do Christadelphians have the Truth?”
Are their beliefs essential for salvation and how can their claims be critically
assessed? The whole of this site is of course examining this question by looking
at how the community works in practice. This section is intended to look more
deeply at the theological positions and the underlying assumptions they are built
upon.

If we are to accept these claims an immediate issue emerges. It essentially
means the saving truth was lost almost from the very start of Christianity until
John Thomas re-established it through his search of the Bible and his preaching
efforts. Since the very beginning it has been hypothesised that a remnant
has always had it, but the historical detail for this has not existed. Early
Christadelphains therefore spoke of John Thomas "rediscovering" it and some attention to the
theological significance of this is relevant and discussed on this site. It
should be noted most Christadelphians shy away from any consideration he was a prophet
or fulfilled that role, although many have spoken of God using him, raising him
up or his work as a Pioneer.

These claims of a restoration of the first century gospel are not unique to Christadelphians
and are a common one to many groups that are called “restorationist.” Many
of these claim direct inspiration by the Holy Spirit to their founders and in this
respect the Christadelphians are unique. The restoration of “the Truth” by
John Thomas is usually attributed to his search of the Bible and unwillingness to
be swayed by any status quo or social acceptance. This lays a huge weight
as a result on his rationality, independence of mind and intellectual abilities.
An emphasis on rationality and downplaying of any role of emotional intelligence
are common Christadelphian features and emotionalism is often believed to be why
other Christians get it wrong. Rationalism as a weakness of the intellectualising
approach is less commonly acknowledged. The existence of their own social
pressures and status quos to conform and the equally strong need for independence
of mind this presents has to generally be done outside the community because it
has its own set of barriers to this.

In the Christadelphian system true theology is something that can be rationally
proven, conversion is primarily through the intellect, and our emotions can be a
real source of restraint from finding the Truth. It has therefore traditionally
been very intellectual in nature. The obvious objection to this is if salvation
is so predicated on correct knowledge, then to some degree the Truth has been hidden
behind an intellectual challenge that held back many zealous and devout people until
John Thomas came along.

People who were contemporary to John Thomas raised this and it deserves some emphasis.
After 150 years we need to recognise that prior to the founder, John Thomas in the
nineteenth century, there is no evidence of groups of people with the same beliefs.
The theory of remnants existing has now been tested and whilst there is evidence
that some people had some of the beliefs, there is no evidence of
groups with all the beliefs. That fact has
theological significance and requires
an explanation for why the saving truth was lost and why it was recovered.
In line with the historical Christadelphian position, partial recovery of essential
truths is not sufficient for salvation, nor would incomplete beliefs be considered
sufficient for fellowship.

It should be noted this doesn’t mean John Thomas could not have rediscovered the
saving truth. It does mean if he was right individuals need emotional detachment
to avoid being conformed by a powerful status quo, extremely zealous searching of
the Bible and high independence of thought. It is therefore worth some considerations
of these concepts and whether they do inevitably lead everyone to the same position.
It should also be noted that most other Christians do not believe this, but instead
believe God draws people to him through his Holy Spirit influencing them.
Christadelphian theology rests considerably on a belief in rationality and independence
of thought.

We also have to ask whether the community has found it workable in its own experience.
Has the community needed to change from its own foundational principles? Does
the community have a theological stance which is consistent with its initial principles?
If not, why not? If it has changed, how does that then change explanations
for its claim to the right to exist?

The claim of Christadelphians has been that we find the truth out by reading the
Bible and appeal to
the authority of the Bible. Yet early Christianity started prior to
the Bible being completed, it was a taught faith and believers held that the Holy
Spirit led people into truth. The claim of Christadelphians has been that
that only applied until the New Testament was completed because at that point God’s
will had been perfectly revealed. In view of the fact that many other churches
do still believe in Christianity as a taught faith and most in some form of present
day guidance by the Holy Spirit this area requires further thought. In addition
many verses in the Bible speak of a far wider role for the Holy Spirit than simply
completing the New Testament, including indwelling the believer and changing them.
We also have to consider
how the canon came into existence and the
availability of the Bible. How, after all, could a perfect Bible
maintain belief if most people could not access or afford it or have the time to
read it. It requires us to consider the question of how the Bible alone could
have worked prior to printing and the translation of the Bible into our common tongues.
We have to wonder whether in fact its role in the
Protestant Reformation led to it being given a position that cannot be sustained
by history and reason.

The obvious difficulty is that many people read the Bible and yet believe it promotes
different things. However infallible the Bible may be, what is clear is that
it doesn’t interpret itself. Having an authoritative Bible and reading it
lots doesn’t make people or communities infallible at interpreting it. The
historical reason given for the recovery of “the Truth” was the uniquely
independent thinking of John Thomas. Apparently despite centuries
of diligent and pious men seeking to find and understand God they lacked this quality.
We have to wonder why God chose such an academic method and why such independent
thinking is necessary. What do we make of verses which clearly state all who
seek him will find him? Certainly we cannot take the Christadelphians on faith
and in fairness they would suggest we read the Bible for ourselves and not take
them on faith.

We therefore need to consider what is involved in
interpreting the Bible. The major way Christadelphians seek to prove
they are right is through proof quoting of Bible verses and making arguments based
on the root meanings of words.

Before we accept proof quoting of the Bible as a valid method, we have to consider
first the way it is believed to be inspired. In other words has it one consistent
message? Are there progressions in theology? Were the personalities
of the writers involved in any way? Early in Christadelphian history an internal
examination of the question of how inspiration works was closed down after the question
was raised and the statement of faith was altered to reflect that. This was
known as “The Inspiration Controversy” and differing views on how inspiration works
were labelled as “partial inspiration.” Even if we accept a belief in rigid
inspiration, proof quotes of themselves have to be read in their immediate context.
That means often whole paragraphs or chapters need to be read. In addition
other churches can present opposing verses which means those chapters need to be
read too. What happens if they still seem to oppose? Well this is when
what Christadelphians would call
balancing the Bible comes in. In some cases the explanations don’t
fit well and books have been written such as
Wrested Scriptures trying to iron out the difficulties and teach people
how to counter them. However we look at it trying to find out whether Christadelphian
theology fits what the Bible says requires a complete contextual grasp of the Bible
which can take years to achieve. In fact many Christradelphians who read three
passages a day have weak areas, verses they can’t explain well and some will be
honest and admit privately “there are grey areas.” Yet as a community it has
a position where its starting point and basis of salvation is one which can take
years to achieve.

But it doesn’t end there, because Christadelphians maintain certain words aren’t
translated well. They suggest the translators had bias and we need to look
at the root meanings of words such as the devil and hell. The difficulty here
is that to get into the word meanings we need to be accomplished at understanding
the semantics of language. If we can’t even trust translators it simply creates
an even greater level of academic need. We really do have to ask what the
essence of Christianity is about and how Christadelphians can really be so bold
as to suggest they alone have the Truth and to claim the right to disfellowship
those within their ranks who dare to question anything.

The aim of this section will be to progressively explore some of the issues here
more deeply, including what is actually written in the Bible. The only real
personal way would be to
read the Bible for yourself. This requires considerable academic study
over an extended period to do so critically, to overcome the limitations of proof-quoting
and to be able to explore the “balancing the Bible” concept. Once we grasp
this we can understand why amassing theological knowledge and assessing scriptural
claims is therefore very much involved with any association with the Christadelphians.
In a way to look at Christadelphian theology is to enter a consideration of theology
in general. Since huge volumes on systematic theology have been written this
is evidently an involved and complex matter. The aim therefore of this site
is not to do the same, but to try and tease out relevant points of consideration
that can aid research. Due to the interlapping nature of any investigation
and although specifically tailored to Christadelphian beliefs (or theology) it will
inevitably consider a number of areas and issues of interest to other denominations
which have similar origins and approaches.

The claim of individual Christadelphians is that they have “proved it to themselves”
and their challenge is that this is what others should do also. I think we
should also be aware not to automatically embrace the Christadelphian idea that
creates this huge need to be a Biblical scholar. We can also ask, what spirit
does this approach create? How well does it work in practice? What if
conversion comes from any direct action by God on the heart or an experience?
And what if the community has created an approach which misses the wood for the
trees? What if the basics of salvation are far simpler and more about a relationship
with God and repentance? What if the gospel has never revolved around the
ability to be able to rationally prove everything?

Whilst all churches have their theologians and scholars, a big difference between
Christadelphians and many other Christians is therefore their emphasis on all members
growing spiritually through a primarily academic approach and the degree to which
progress is
believed to come through being a Bible scholar. It should also be
noted that this emphasis and approach has also affected the tone of the community
in other ways from how people relate to each other, as well as how worship and everyday
religious life is conducted. In some ways it has also been rightly argued
that there is an underlying atheist appeal in the idea that everything can be proven
which if true would dispense any need for faith. From personal experience
I know not everything fits what Christadelphian teach. To explain that would
require writing a large book and being very careful which words to use in order
not to be misunderstood. Many Christadelphians privately will acknowledge
years in “the Truth” have made them aware everything isn’t as black-and-white as
they were taught initially. You learn even well regarded Christadelphians
can’t convincingly explain certain verses away and many times bits which are inconvenient
are made to fit.

A practical difficulty is that it creates a system of intellectual spiritual elitism
based upon knowledge and the ability to debate scripture. In general as a
community reading the Bible as individual members is more exhaustive than in many
other denominations. They therefore often have a knowledge of the Bible other
Christians do not possess and will use this knowledge (sometimes forcefully) to
suggest other Christians not only are wrong, but are not saved as they may believe.
Their approach therefore often has the difficult combination for non Christadelphians
(both Christian and non Christian) of being not only contentious, but highly academic
and very complex for those without comprehensive Biblical knowledge to assess.
It also leads to a phenomenon where interested friends can attend for years without
becoming Christadelphians because there can be a very real difficulty to becoming
fully convinced as a
true believer.

Progress of Theology and the Bible

At the heart of Christadelphian interpretations of the Bible is a certain view of
the Bible. It is the historic Protestant one that views the Bible as “the
Word of God” and “the authority.” In essence every word, unless obviously
metaphoric, is believed to be the literal words of God written down. This
is believed to be through inspiration, but the authors are merely tools in this
process. The message is believed to be unaffected in its literality by their
circumstance, personality and time.

The problem here is the Bible itself. It can’t easily be fitted into such
an interpretative framework. In short there are both variances and progressions
within it. The Christadelphian response is a belief in “balancing the Bible,”
but this has the effect of wresting certain passages from their obvious meanings,
whilst ironically still holding they take it at word value. The ability to
intellectually do this is known as rationalism.

The biggest progressions are found between the Old Testament and the New Testament,
although there are variances in the Old Testament too. For instance, in early
parts of the Bible multiple marriage is allowable and building altars was a valid
religious form of expression. Few Christians would support the first or do
the second today. We also have a progression in God’s methods. The first
period is up to the Flood Account. If we take the genealogies literally this
is about 2000 years. For this period they don’t have a defined plan to get
to God, or at least we have no record of one. The earth ends up corrupt.
Everyone apart from one family, Noah and his sons, are destroyed and we get the
second start.

God’s plan this time works through the Jewish nation and centres around their forefathers,
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This time the method centres around promises to
their descendants, but they also get a national code of conduct called “the Law
of Moses.” This revolves around laws regarding behaviour, what foods can be
eaten, animal sacrifices, the treatment of women and slaves, a national priesthood,
how God should be approached and much more. It does not deal with how a person
can be saved and in fact this topic gets pretty small space in the Old Testament.
Hence when we get to the time of Jesus we find groups arguing over the matter.

Some books are history. Some books are their hymn books, like the Psalms.
Some are very philosophic such as Ecclesiastes. A huge percentage are prophetic.
The Law of Moses had made the claim that if the Jews would obey they would get blessed
above all nations. The seasons would be favourable to their crops. They
would be successful in battle with their enemies and so forth. On the other hand
if they did not obey they would be oppressed by their neighbours, plagues and diseases
would abound and eventually they would go into captivity. The prophets were
folk who preached national repentance to avert the oppression coming from their
more powerful neighbours, the Assyrians and the Babylonians. They did bizarre
stuff to try and get listened to and were persecuted and hated. They therefore
predicted destruction, but with an undernote. Although the Jewish people would
go into captivity, one day a remnant would return and the Jewish people would again
get their land back and be powerful. Harking back to promises given to their
forefathers they expected through the Jewish nation all nations to be blessed.
Christadelphians focus on these prophecies as a main element of the saving gospel
and see a fulfilment in the return of the Jews back to Israel in 1948.

This is the context of the New Testament from a Jewish perspective, except they
weren’t looking for a fulfilment in 1948. They expected it then. There
had been some aspect of return in one sense already. The books of Ezra and
Nehemiah recall this happening under the Persians. The temple, which was the
centre of their worship and a necessary part of keeping the law of Moses had been rebuilt to a lesser degree than the first temple
and a later one built under Herod, a governor. Some respect for Jewish ways
had also been given by the Romans who ruled at the time of Christ. But in
the biggest sense they hadn’t regained their land back and this is what they would
have been looking for. Indeed this has been the foundation of the Zionist
movement which worked towards the restoration of Israel in 1948 and which was achieved.
We also have prophecies in the book of Ezekiel prophesying an immense temple which
has never been built, with measurements, with a restoration of animal sacrifices,
run by the Levitical tribes of Israel. This again is believed to be fulfilled
literally, although the references to Levitical Jews were suggested by Christadelphian
pioneers to be metaphoric of “a class of people.” They expected the restoration
therefore to be a Jewish one based on the restoration of the Law of Moses.

We get a gap of about 300 years between the last book of the Old Testament and the
New Testament and we get presented with a unique character called “John the Baptist.”
He is following a practice called “baptism” and which is representative here of
repentance. His mission was to prepare hearts for the Messiah who everyone
was expecting. Most would have expected this person to have overcome the Romans
taken in its historical context. He meets Jesus and announces he was the man
and baptises him as requested by Jesus himself.

The message that Jesus proclaims is “the kingdom is at hand” and the kingdom from
an Old Testament perspective was “the kingdom of Israel.” It was the territory
roughly where Israel is today. However he also calls it by a new name, “the
kingdom of heaven.” Christadelphians are often at pains to suggest this doesn’t
mean the kingdom is “in” heaven, it only “pertains” to heaven. Nevertheless
it is a new emphasis and means something. In any case, the disciples go out
with this message throughout Israel and Christ also tells parables (stories with
deeper meanings) starting with “the kingdom of God is like unto.” He heals
people, raises the dead and teaches. These teachings are extreme in nature,
but not in a violent sense. A person should give to anyone who asks, turn
the other cheek if they are hit, forgive an unlimited number of times and if they
are really serious give all their worldly resources to the poor to get blessings
in heaven. These are known as “the hard sayings” because we find his disciples
querying him whether anyone can therefore be saved. Christ says yes, it’s
impossible for men, but possible for God and he is portrayed as living the impossible
life himself, having “no place to lay his head.”

He gets extreme opposition from Jewish leaders who question his authority.
He quotes passages that apply to God in the Old Testament and applies them to himself.
He is the shepherd of Isaiah. We have to note here one of the main groups
of leaders were known as the Pharisees. The word means “separatist” and they
held the view that they had gone into captivity as a result of disobedience to the
law. They therefore believed they should follow it to the letter and were
very legalistic about doing so. The law was fairly brief on certain aspects.
You weren’t, for instance, allowed to work on the Sabbath (the Saturday or 7th day),
but work wasn’t defined. You could put away your wife for uncleanness, but
that wasn’t defined, so they had a tradition of interpreting these matters.
Jesus portrayed them as lacking love and mercy and saw their attempts as detracted
from more important matters. The common folk agreed and his straight talking,
common person approach was unlike the technical, intellectual stuff they had from
the leaders. Jesus explained their theology as burdensome and his as releasing.
His theology suggested a deeper level than the letter of the law, that of the heart.
From their perspective this was often a negation of the law and they saw it also
as a challenge to their own authority. Jesus said for instance “ye have heard
it said eye for eye and tooth for tooth, but I say unto you.” This wasn’t
some abstract hearing he referred to. It is actually a quote from the Law
of Moses.

The end result we read is that he was crucified and then brought back to life.
It seems that no one expected this to happen. The leaders of the Jews did
not, but it was equally surprising to his disciples too. We read how he told
his disciples prior to the event it had to happen, but they "didn’t understand the saying", apparently thinking it to be
another mystical saying of his. After all, on another occasion he had said
they had to eat his body and drink his blood. We read that they only understood when he
“opened the book” to them after rising from the dead. He explained in other words how it fitted into
the Old Testament. The reason why this was so difficult for them to see is
because it was an esoteric way of interpreting the Old Testament and this method
can be seen throughout the New Testament. (this needs its own study).
It wasn’t clearly spelled out in everyday language.

After this we read he spoke for 40 days to his disciples and then ascended to heaven.
Angels appear and promise he would come back in the same way. Little detail
is given of what he said, except that they had to go to Jerusalem and wait for the
Holy Spirit. This came at a Jewish festival called Pentecost and this is the
point at which the Christian gospel about the death and resurrection of Christ starts to be preached and “the church” starts.
The disciples gain boldness to preach, are able to do miraculous stuff and they
promise the Holy Spirit would be given to everyone afterwards. This was portrayed
as Christ himself being with them. They immediately share all their possessions,
meet every day and go into active preaching mode. The idea that Jesus - who
had been put to death - had been raised alarms the authorities and they try and stop
the disciples activities. It eventually leads to them leaving Jerusalem in substantial numbers
and going through the Roman Empire with the message.

They don’t have a written Bible, but they do believe God is leading and guiding
them and what they wrote is in the New Testament. In fact much is written
by one particular disciple, Paul. He wrote about the law being perfect for
its purpose, that being, not the slaughter of animals and obedience to codes of
conduct. Rather it had a deeper purpose which lay within its symbolism.
On some level a person had to grasp that and thereby come to Christ. Again
it is all very esoteric. It is even spoken of as “hidden” in the New Testament
and their belief was in the Holy Spirit. God and Jesus through this drew people
to repentance and Christ, they became “new creations” and changed people in a way
the law could not.
Quotes about this are profuse, but are generally denied by Christadelphians.
This is because they impose an Old Testament view onto the New Testament and they
also believe the Holy Spirit was primarily about special powers (which they see
no evidence for) and which they believe the creation of the canon negated any need
for.

Please appreciate writing this section is involved, so this is a preliminary start
and more details will be added with time.